Newsletter

Cheatham says attorney coerced him into flawed strategy

Hawver says he carried out orders of prison-seasoned murder defendant

Phillip Cheatham spoke this week in Shawnee County Jail, where he awaits a retrial in the capital murder of two women in December 2003. A disciplinary panel has recommended his attorney for the first trial be disbarred.

Phillip Cheatham says he was coerced into approving attorney Dennis Hawver’s flawed strategy for a 2005 capital murder trial, disputing recent claims Hawver made in hopes of keeping his law license.

Hawver says he was carrying out Cheatham’s orders when he told the jury about Cheatham’s past as a drug-dealing killer, a strategy that led the Kansas Supreme Court to order a retrial.

“He was born in prison,” Hawver said. “He had been in prison before, he knew how the system worked, and he’s not a person who is easily coerced.”

Cheatham’s mother was incarcerated for drug-related crimes while pregnant with her son, who now writes affidavits on behalf of fellow inmates through his Marvelous Light Due Process Foundation. But 10 years ago, Cheatham said, he was ignorant of his rights.

“I wasn’t as knowledgeable about the law as I am now,” he said this week in a jailhouse interview.

Disagreement about who developed the strategy stems from a brief Hawver filed last month with the state’s high court. Justices have yet to rule on a disciplinary panel recommendation that Hawver be disbarred for his performance in the trial.

Hawver said Wednesday he and Cheatham agreed their best chance was to convince a jury Cheatham wouldn’t have left an eyewitness alive. Annetta Thomas survived 19 bullet wounds to identify Cheatham as one of two shooters in the deaths of Gloria Jones and Annette Roberson.

“Phillip and I had a complete agreement on how we were going to do this,” Hawver said, “and he authorized me in writing to not hide his background.”

The agreement, Cheatham said, was reached after Hawver, without letting him know, declined funds made available by the state. Cheatham said Hawver, who was working for free, then misled him about not being able to subpoena witnesses from out of state because he didn’t have the money for research.

Cheatham said several witnesses would have testified he was in Chicago at the time of the killings. Hawver didn’t notify prosecutors in time to present evidence for an alibi at trial, leaving Cheatham’s own testimony about his criminal background as the only option.

“I was prejudiced by those failures,” Cheatham said. “He forced me to be a witness against myself and testify about my past.”

On the stand, Cheatham told jurors a slaying in 1994 was “the first, last and only time I’ve ever shot anybody.” If he hadn’t brought it up, prosecutors couldn’t have told the jurors about Cheatham’s criminal past.

Included in Hawver’s brief is their tactical agreement, handwritten by Hawver, allowing for “all evidence” to be presented, even if it could be excluded.

“That was signed under duress and coercion,” Cheatham said.

Hawver said he was shocked, upset and dismayed to learn Cheatham’s stance.

“Why would he sign something under duress? I mean what duress? I don’t understand,” Hawver said.

“He asked me to represent him,” Hawver added. “I talked to him. I was convinced that he didn’t do it, so I said I’d take the case because I felt that he was innocent, and I still do. I like Phillip Cheatham, and I’m sorry that, you know, it’s not in my best interest that he now goes back on our understood and signed agreement that I should let everything come in, including his criminal background.

“That’s why he signed what he signed. He read it. He signed it. And if he hadn’t wanted to sign it, he could have gotten different counsel. I didn’t force him or coerce him. We both came to that conclusion jointly.”

Cheatham also disputes a claim Hawver made in his brief about Cheatham refusing to disclose the whereabouts of his brother, who could be used as a witness. Cheatham was trying to protect his brother, Hawver said.

But Cheatham said there is nobody to hide or protect — he just couldn’t get Hawver to understand “brother” was his affectionate term for the friends in Chicago he hoped would be called as alibi witnesses.

“I really don’t want to make a comment, man,” Hawver said. “I don’t want to prejudice him. I don’t believe he’s guilty. I believe he’s innocent. And so I don’t want to get into a fight with him. I’ve told you, and I’ve told the supreme court what my position is.”